State v. Robinson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Robinson

678 P.2d 270, 67 Or. App. 391, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3002

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 14, 1984

Docket50265S; CA A29412

StatusPublished

This text of 678 P.2d 270 (State v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Robinson, 678 P.2d 270, 67 Or. App. 391, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3002 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks reversal of his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 487.540. He contends that, because the prosecutor voiced no objections, it was error to deny his motion to exclude witnesses. In support of his contention, defendant relies on State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1972), in which we held that, when a trial court fails to grant an unopposed motion to exclude witnesses, “we must assume prejudice, unless the record affirmatively reflects the contrary.” 7 Or App at 565. We agree that the denial of defendant’s motion was erroneous. However, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, in the light of the circumstances of this case, any error occasioned by the trial court’s failure to exclude witnesses was harmless. See State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 341, 674 P2d 66 (1984).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks reversal of his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 487.540. He contends that, because the prosecutor voiced no objections, it was error to deny his motion to exclude witnesses. In support of his contention, defendant relies on State v. Bishop, 7 Or App 558, 492 P2d 509 (1972), in which we held that, when a trial court fails to grant an unopposed motion to exclude witnesses, “we must assume prejudice, unless the record affirmatively reflects the contrary.” 7 Or App at 565. We agree that the denial of defendant’s motion was erroneous. However, we have reviewed the record and conclude that, in the light of the circumstances of this case, any error occasioned by the trial court’s failure to exclude witnesses was harmless. See State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337, 341, 674 P2d 66 (1984).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

678 P.2d 270, 67 Or. App. 391, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 3002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robinson-orctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack